Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2011

Donggyeong[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Gyeongju. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED, re-directs are appropriate only when the language of the re-direct (in this case romanised Korean) has current or historical association with the article target. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tokyo was the capital of Korea, for a long period 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but (essentially) the first half of the 20th century is not a long period... –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Half a century is a long period, it's more than a generation. I said "long period", not long portion of Korean history. We have articles on things that last less than half a century. If the existence of articles on things that last less than half a century is acceptable on Wikipedia, so are redirects. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gyeongju, as this is the place that the google books hits for "Donggyeong" seem to be referring to (those that I can ascertain anyway) and donggyeong tokyo -wikipedia finds nothing relevant. Web searches are harder to determine as "Donggyeong" appears to be a very popular name for restaurants. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Donggyeong means "Eastern Capital", as does Tokyo. But, as I said, the occupation by the Japanese is very short compared to the rest of Korean history. My bad for not knowing alternative names of _every_ city. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation is not a criticism of you or your knowledge, it's just an alternative suggestion. I'd never even heard the names "Donggyeong" or "Gyeongju" until this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the tone of the "my bad". You should be assured to know that I did not take it to be as criticism, and I don't think any observer could reasonably conclude to the contrary. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retarget to Gyongju, given the historical name status. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Troll metal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that referred to a small, unsourced paragraph removed from the target article in 2008. No incoming article space links, very little through traffic, all in all, another useless redirect that confuses readers. Closedmouth (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete I can find a fair few mentions of "troll metal", so it's not a neologism. However I can't find any reliable sources that cover it at all, but others may have more luck (particularly if they know where to look). The closest I've come is [1], but I can't actually see the snippet in question (this is possibly due to my ongoing issues with javascript). I believe this magazine is a reliable source, but from the summary I did see, I'm not certain it isn't talking about Wikipedia. If there are no reliable sources about troll metal, then we are never going to have coverage of it, so we shouldn't have it as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is used a far bit, about 2.4 hits a day (there for being useful to some people), so deleting it would probably result in it being remade. Also note that the article is very old (made in 2003), so there very well could be external links pointing to it that would be broken when we deleted it. Tideflat (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And those 2.4 people are ending up at the Viking metal page wondering what any of it has to do with troll metal. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_30&oldid=616124801"